Talk:Vladimir Putin

Russia is in WTO now, formation of sentence is in present sense

Found this under "2nd Premiership" article on the Putin Wiki-page. Russia as we know is in WTO now so this should be reformed in the past sense or removed and WTO acceptance pointed out.

On 9 June 2009, after 16 years of slowly progressing accession talks with the World Trade Organization, which, according to the European Union, might be completed by the end of the year, Vladimir Putin announced that Russia withdrew from the negotiations and instead would make a new joint bid with Belarus and Kazakhstan. Senior Kremlin officials had earlier signalled, that Russia was losing patience with Western promises to let it join

Error

"is the current Prime Minister of Russia" date 03/04/2011 "He became acting President on 31 December 1999" "During his eight years in office"

These three quotes all found in the 1st 3 paragraphs of the entry, as I do not have the authority to make the appropriate changes myself I suggest another does

Fixed some odd phrasing. Materialscientist (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Judo Section - first leader to advanced levels?

"Though he is not the first world leader to practice judo, Putin is the first leader to move forward into the advanced levels."

Pierre Trudeau the former Canadian Prime Minister held a 2nd Dan black belt in Judo, according to citations in Wikipedia, and I'd think that a 2nd Dan black belt would be an advanced level, as I believe black belt is highest in Canada and then moves to advanced levels like 2nd Dan?

Minor item, but is it correct that he is first leader to move forward to advanced levels (assuming advanced levels is defined)? Judo experts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.185.131 (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a judo expert, but 6th Dan is a significantly higher rank than 2nd. However, any Dan rank could fairly be called "advanced". a13ean (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

neutral pov

"Despite claims by President Vladimir Putin that the Kremlin had no interest in bankrupting Yukos, the company's assets were auctioned at below-market value. In addition, new debts suddenly emerged out of nowhere, preventing the company from surviving. The main beneficiary of these tactics was Rosneft. It is clearer now than ever that the expropriation of Yukos was a ploy to put key elements of the energy sector in the hands of Putin's retinue.

Obvious non neutral language and point of view. Don't understand the details and may be true but this is emotive and speculative language with no ref spec. to comments. Maybe someone who knows a little more about russia could fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.181.210.185 (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Done ( finally, v kontse kontsov) That sentence was easily deletable on its own, just needed to get rid of the "Moreover" at the beginning of the next sentence. This obviously is also a win-win edit. There is too much here anyway. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Near-native fluency in German

Hi, I would like a citation that proves (not just claims) that Putin's fluency in German is near-native. Thanks! 89.163.95.11 (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You can easily find videos on youtube of Putin speaking in German. LokiiT (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, LokiiT. I've got native Russian and near-native English, but my German is very basic. I could tell the difference myself if it concerned either of my two languages, Russian and English. But that's not really the point. I've heard some German speakers say that Putin's German is fluent, but no more - i.e. nowhere near native level. Therefore, I wonder if this Wiki article should include a source to corroborate the 'near-native' claim.

Well, according to WP:BLP, all questionable claims, positive or negative, need to be properly sourced. Unfortunately, I have no such source for you. A quick google search shows some results that make the same claim, though none of them are particularly good sources. LokiiT (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Now, would that not be OR? ;>) OK, here is a very good source for Putin speaking fluent German (may already be referenced in the article for other reasons): [1]. No need for anything more than that. There is enough peacock language here already. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

GRU not KGB

It has recently been disclosed Putin was GRU, and not KGB. Perhaps the category should be changed. Thank you. nobs (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link [2] nobs (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to all of his official biographies (including his autobiography) he worked for KGB, not GRU. Both organizations are secretive, thus everything is possibly but we need much more than a passing reference in a webpage to assume it as a verified fact Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand that GRU is the foreign counter-intelligence department of the KGB, effectively making him a member of the KGB nevertheless. If he was a counter-operative in Germany, that its very possible that he worked for GRU, but it would also make him a KGB agent as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.137.200 (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, GRU is military intelligence, attached to the General Staff of the Armed Forces. KGB is (was) a separate branch of the intelligence services. They are (were) independent of each other. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Su-27 flight and human losses.

Sadly it's long time I am unable edit Wikipedia so I will leave question to other editors. Recently I was seating and watching TV channel "Russia" film about Vympels and Police oficers being blocked in campus in Grozny, Chechnya by guerrilas and federal comand thought they are dead already so they where on their own for 4 days.

So wathcing this I recalled that when Putin was flying to Chechnya on Su-27 the forces that where covering airport where planed to take part in some other operation same time. They where called to airport unexpectedly and where unable to suport some other forces in that operation. In result those other forces took serious casualties.

IF this is realy happened and not "my imagination" or journalist false info I think this belong to the article. I also think that while definetly it is not Putins personal decison who and how should cover his arival it was done by ppls from his administration and as nobody was punished for senseless losses it should be put in "Criticism" section. So I wonder if anybody remember all this too.--Oleg Str (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

gdp numbers

This sentence, since it's in the lede should be made much clearer: Russia's economy bounced back from crisis, seeing GDP increase sixfold (72% in PPP). The fact that nominal GDP increased six fold while real GDP increased 72% (the PPP measure) would basically imply that prices (inflation) increased by about five fold+ (with some possible role for changes in prices of tradables vs. nontradables). In fact, generally, nominal GDP is a pretty meaningless measure of anything (it's calculated as a starting point for further refinements) so all that the six fold increase tells you, is that along with the (actually, very impressive) 72% increase in actual standard of living, there was also a lot of inflation.

I'd recommend just removing the nominal GDP figures and sticking to inflation and international price differential adjusted figures (PPP) so as to avoid confusing the reader.radek (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The nominal GDP is also important as it describes the foreign purchasing power. I.e. Russians would not be able to travel abroad as freely as they are now, was it not for the nominal GDP growth. Internal inflation denominated in rubles was much higher than the inflation in USD for all these years (2000-2008), but the ruble/USD exchange rate was almost identical in 2000 and in the end of 2008. 93.153.182.18 (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Chess career

Info should be added on Putin's chess career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.218.12 (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Does he have a chess career? I know that there are online chess players who use the monniker "Vladimir Putin" but I do not really think that the real guy has any time to play online. I suppose he can play chess, but with all the googles that link "Vladimir Putin chess" to Kasparov, how are we to know? Is there a biography which says anything about his prowess at chess? --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Russian protesters angry with Putin

In support of my modification of the article:

Bangladesh News.Net, Sunday 31st January, 2010, http://www.bangladeshnews.net/story/595587

Russian protesters angry with Putin.

A protest against the leadership of Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin, attracted around 10,000 people to the Russian Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad on Saturday.

Demanding the resignation Putin, protestors shouted slogans against his handling of the Russian economy, especially related to living costs and unemployment.

In the rare show of anger against Prime Minister Putin, the crowd protested vocally against the recent 25-30 percent rise in utility bills, transport costs and the high number of job losses in Russia....

Sincerely, dima (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Also, The Other Russia, January 30th, 2010, http://www.theotherrussia.org/2010/01/30/12-thousand-car-owners-demand-putins-resignation/ 12 Thousand Car Owners Demand Putin’s Resignation

http://www.jurnal.md/en/news/thousands-of-kaliningrad-citizens-are-requesting-putin-s-resignation-172004/ Thousands of Kaliningrad citizens are requesting Putin`s resignation

Straits Times January 31, 2010 Sunday:
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_484512.html
Rally to urge Putin to resign
MOSCOW - UP TO 10,000 people rallied in the Russian Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad on Saturday demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin over living costs and unemployment, a rare show of anger with the popular figure.

http://www.malaysianews.net/story/595587 http://www.kyivpost.com/news/russia/detail/58348/ Russian protesters angry with Putin. Malaysia News.Net, Sunday 31st January, 2010

http://www.actualidadnoticias.com/news_194903_Thousands-rally-to-urge-Russias-Putin-to-resign-%0A----Reuters%0A.html
Thousands rally to urge Russia's Putin to resign (Reuters) 30/01/2010 20:06

Should I add more or these are sufficient for the user who does not speak Russian? dima (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ministership

Question. Is "Ministership" a word? --209.150.99.111 (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. (And SOED agrees.) Mitch Ames (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag Obsolete

There appears to by a POV tag here from Febuary. Are there still POV issues? If so, can someone list them? Thanks NickCT (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"fundamental" reforms?

How are the reforms described in the third paragraph "fundamental?" Issyl 12:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Issyl (talk • contribs)

Edit request from Tarian.liber, 4 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please change "The use of such alternatives to money now fallen out of favour" to "The use of such alternatives to money has now fallen out of favour" because the current wording is grammatically incorrect.

Tarian.liber (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Nsk92 (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Relationship with Alina Kabaeva

The rumours resurfaced this week in Indian and Pakistani newspapers. This is a blog but summarizes the claims very well: [3]

Most of the actual newspaper articles seem to be a re-hash of the 2008 story, and even keep Kabaeva's age at 24. Some do add the baby that was supposedly born in December 2009 - which is from the New York Post. The New York Post also claimed Alina and the baby vanished from the earth in February 2010 - which is obviously wrong as Alina continued to publish on her public appearances at her LiveJournal account.

We will probably need to expand the item about her and the rumours. I am not suggesting anything about the veracity of the rumours.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd agree. The Putins' marriage does seem in general to be on the rocks - see this Telegraph article. The couple are almost never seen together. Malick78 (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This is pure gossip based on the opinion of some unnamed bloggers and misinterpretation of the simple fact that there is only one wife in Russian politics who is expected to appear in public often - the wife of the President. Since Putin is not a President for two years it is quite natural that Lyudmila Putina is not seen in public much for these two years (in fact, she was rarely seen even before). GreyHood ^Talk 13:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Unlock

Unlock the page! --188.23.69.202 (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If you see an edit needs to be made, you are welcome to post a suggestion right here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 27, 2010; 14:31 (UTC)

Poisonings

Why do we not have any mention of the killing of journalists or the poisonings of other figures in this article, not even in Vladimir_Putin#Criticism or in Criticism of Vladimir Putin? I would think being accused of murder is a pretty strong criticism, and the accusation has certainly been made. If we are going to leave out accusations in the name of WP:BLP, the fact remains that the number of journalists killed skyrocketed under Putin, and a ban on political assassinations in other countries which was honoured by the USSR-era KGB seems to have been lifted as evidenced by the poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko. Putin was certainly criticized also for the failure of Russian authorities under his control to investigate these incidents. Those are facts, not bare accusations, are notable as they are in reliable publications, and as such are also reliable because they are undisputed facts. It is also a fact that these accusations were made by law enforcement and other officials in the west, but as I said I have certainly seen other articles where accusations were left out for WP:BLP, as evidenced for instance by the article on Pope Benedict XVI where certain editors worked hard to ensure that even when legal action was taken no mention was ever made of such things (through deletes and reversions). We may disagree on that, but the reliable facts should be reported at the very least. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have the evidence that compares a number of journalists killed in 1990s in Russia with that of 2000s? I pretty much doubt that with all that huge criminal situation of 1990s in Russia we may speak about "the number of journalists killed skyrocketed under Putin". They just didn't pay attention in 1990s of how many journalists were killed in the country, while only in 2000s, for some reason, this topic became the focus of attention of human rights activists and the Western critics. Then, Yushchenko's poisoning is rather far-fetched and unclear matter to be brought here - the sources can't decide even if Yuschenko poisoned himself of was indeed poisoned by someone else. And finally, the chief problem is that there are no any "undisputed facts" in accusations on Putin - there is pretty much dispute on all these claims, and all these uncertain things better go to the article Criticism of Vladimir Putin, where they can be presented broadly and accurately, not here. This article is already large by the way, and may do with some contraction. It loads nearly 1 minute long with slow non-broadline internet. GreyHood ^Talk 19:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The number of killed journalists did not "skyrocket" during Putin's time, see List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia#Deaths_and_trials.2C_statistics. It basically stayed same as under Yeltsin. In recent years, it has decreased. Offliner (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Btw, these trends on journalist mortality seem to be mostly coinciding with the trend on general mortality in Russia. So, presenting the topic of journalist killings in Russia as something exceptional and connected with Putin's rule is pretty much based on nothing. GreyHood ^Talk 17:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. Putin has consistently suppressed the media and encouraged a hostile attitude towards them on the part of the authorities, both central and local. Even Gorbachev has been mentioning suppression of free speech recently. A mention of this is warranted. Malick78 (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What says Gorbachev and what statistics show are two different things. GreyHood ^Talk 22:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN

[4] - then what exactly was Putin's role? Just being in the advisory board of a Germany company that was under investigation, is not notable, and further it feels like WP:SYN, because it's implying that Putin personally is responsible for money laundering, and a WP:BLP violation, because Putin's personal role is not made clear and the implied accusation is not backed up by evidence. Among all the millions of accusations made against Putin, why is this one so important and credible that it needs to mentioned? Offliner (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Since there were no objections and no comments from the reverter, I have removed the WP:BLP violation. Please do not restore without consensus. Nanobear (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've done a partial revert as you seemed to remove more than what is covered by the above discussion. This is what needs to be taken out as I can see it. __meco (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

@meco, that would be correct, text written in the form of guilt by association is unacceptable. The rest (recommendation) is factual and not a WP:BLP violation. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Lex3191, 3 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} This is the first time i have made a request i am sorry if i make a mistake. The section 'Early Political Career' paragraph starting 'On 27 June 1997' makes reference to 'Gaddy' but doesnt explain who he is, an also doesn't reference what University the Professors who Putin allegedly plagarised submitted the paper. It is important to the cohesion of the paragraph to explain who 'Gaddy' is and where he was from, and also what university the study originated. I believe the paragraph should be, my additions are in bold:

On 27 June 1997, at the Saint Petersburg Mining Institute Putin was forced to defend his Candidate of Science dissertation in economics titled "The Strategic Planning of Regional Resources Under the Formation of Market Relations".[48] According to Clifford G Gaddy, a senior fellow at Brookings Institution, a Washington DC think tank, sixteen of the twenty pages that open a key section of Putin's 218-page thesis were copied either word for word or with minute alterations from a management study, Strategic Planning and Policy, written by US professors William King and David Cleland from the University of Pittsburgh in 1978 and translated into Russian by a KGB-related institute in the early 1990s.[49][50] Six diagrams and tables were also copied.[51]

and here is the source reference http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article695235.ece

Gaddy is also quoted in the Washington times as saying:

"It all boils down to plagiarism," he said. "Whether you're talking about a college-level term paper, not to mention a formal dissertation, there's no question in my mind that this would be plagiarism."

which is inconsistent with the following line of the previously quoted Wikipedia article

Gaddy does not believe that the plagiarism was really intentional "in the sense that if you had wanted to hide where the text came from you wouldn't even list this work in the bibliography."[52] The dissertation committee disagreed with Gaddy's claims.

The quote is also not in the article referenced as the source.

I think it would make sense to have this instead, section in bold taken from the Washington Times artice

"It all boils down to plagiarism," Gaddy said in a Washington Times interview. "...there's no question in my mind that this would be plagiarism." Although Putin did cite the King-Cleland study as one of his 47 sources, he gave no indication that paragraphs and pages were taken unchanged from the earlier work. The dissertation committee disagreed with Gaddy's claims.

source http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/mar/24/20060324-104106-9971r/?page=2

Lex3191 (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Lex3191 (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

On first reading I saw discrepancies between your statements and what the sources said, which inclined me to reject your request. However, looking further I saw that your essential point was valid, and I have made changes broadly in line with your suggestion. Certainly it needed to be be clarified who Gaddy is, and that he stated that there was plagiarism. However, reading further, the sources do not fully support your view. For example, in reference to "Gaddy does not believe that the plagiarism was really intentional" you say "The quote is also not in the article referenced as the source". This is simply not true. The cited source says "The next question of course is: was it intentional plagiarism, or what was it all about? And that’s always the question with plagiarism. In this case, I don’t think it was really intentional in the sense that if you had wanted to hide where the text came from you wouldn’t even list this work in the bibliography. Had they not listed the book in the bibliography, I could never have checked it." It is also not true that the quote beginning "It all boils down to plagiarism..." is inconsistent with "Gaddy does not believe that the plagiarism was really intentional", as you assert. Reading the quotes in their context in the article from which they are taken, it is clear that Gaddy is saying "yes, it is plagiarism, but it is not clear that it was intentional plagiarism". Whether you or I or anyone else thinks that this was a reasonable position for Gaddy to take is entirely irrelevant: it is what he said, and so it is quite correct for the Wikipedia article to report him as saying that. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request, 16 February 2011

At the end of the first paragraph in the "KGB Career" section there is a typo where the word "studied" is spelled "sutdied."

Done! Närking (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal Wealth new information.

Some Putin's allies are openly go against him, recently a new story about $1B mansion built for Putin surfaced.

The story started when Dr. Sergey Kolesnikov ( http://ippnw2010.org/index.php?id=150 ) wrote an open letter to President Dmitry Medvedev. The letter's english translation is here: http://corruptionfreerussia.com/?lang=en

In short it describes an elite construction complex and how it was suddenly transferred to a private person who has close ties to Putin. Media paid attention to this letter and decided to actually find this complex based on the description. It was located using google maps and several reporters tried to come close to the object. This is all recorded on video and is documented:

Detention of journalists in Putin's Palace: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJVlqYF6SJ0

Detention of GreenPiece activists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kU7R6BBx4c

Here's video made from available pictures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5iy1GDmetU

Here's the article by the journalists who tried to visit the location: http://forum-msk.org/material/video/5557851.html English translation of the article: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum-msk.org%2Fmaterial%2Fvideo%2F5557851.html&act=url

I believe there is enough evidence, and this fact (the open letter to President Dmitry Medvedev) should be mentioned in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pps80 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• There's been an update on this: http://www.vedomosti.ru/newspaper/article/257793/troe_iz_dvorca But the info is probably difficult to make sense of and too recent by the WP standards.Axxxion (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"In December 2007, Belkovsky elaborated on his claims: "Putin's name doesn't appear on any shareholders' register, of course. There is a non-transparent scheme of successive ownership of offshore companies and funds. The final point is in Zug, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein. Vladimir Putin should be the beneficiary owner.""well, as of 29.12.2006, Gazprom's main shareholders were Rosimushchestvo - 38.373% Gazprombank 41.235% Rosneftegaz - 10.74% Gerosgaz - 2.93% E.ON Ruhrgas - 2.5% together 95,778%!!! so, where are putins 4,5%.(to Surgutneftegaz:it is said that 60%belongs to managemet, Gunvor denied the claims) This bullsheet should be deleted. ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.223.214.197 (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Putin's childhood story

Should not this Daily Telegraph story of Putin's alleged mother and his difficult childhood be used in the article? --Kober^Talk 10:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a typical yellow press story. GreyHood ^Talk 12:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

None of the academic sources I've seen (and I've read a lot of them) take this story seriously, or even mention it. Nanobear (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an old story. Dutch TV broadcast a film about this woman's claim more than five years ago. The dates of birth did not match in the Dutch story and it is even worse here. Since Vladimir Putin-the-president was enrolled at a Leningrad primary school, that would mean they would have had to make him five years younger. There is a photograph of the Leningrad boy with his Leningrad mother where he looks barely five. And yes, we know that his father in Leningrad was called Putin. The woman in Georgia may genuinely believe what she is claiming - this would then be a namesake. The name Putin is not so infrequent.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well done on this -- a truly well done wiki article. Prof D

No further message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.8.74 (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In russian version, the the DAN rank is 10th. ???!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.61.191.151 (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

in Russia and elsewhere; i.e. Chechnya

Not correct I assume. 109.229.103.42 (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think the lede to a biographical article is a correct place to discuss the controversial issue whether Chechnya is a part of Russian federation or not. I have excluded the clause. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Average monthly salaries

The quoted eight-fold increase in month salaries is grossly misleading and biased in favour of Putin as it depends largely on exchange rate movements. 217.137.151.41 (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Unclear reference

Reference 14 here doesn't really go anywhere useful - it goes to a navigation page of the website, but not to the actual page associated with Putin. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010 --Kierkkadon (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Third time, President Putin of Russia?

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: The current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to run for third term as president of Russia with a great chance to win. Well-meaning advice: no democracy without a strong hand. Putin to Putinke good choice, best for Russia.78.2.116.42 (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your English is poor and not sure what point you are making, nor do you give details of an RS nature for the article. ?? HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Putin for president?

Reuters' veteran Moscow correspondent Guy Faulconbridge reported on July 27 that Putin was close to a decision on bidding for the presidency in the March 2012 presidential election. The article cited senior Russian sources who said that Putin had already made a decision to run because he was troubled by his protege, Dmitry Medvedev. The article, written by such an experienced Reuters reporter who also broke news of the U.S.-Russian spy swap in 2010, created front page news in the Russian media. Nezavisimaya daily newspaper called the Reuters scoop a sensation. On Sept 24 at a party congress of Putin's ruling United Russia party, Medvedev proposed Putin run in the March 2012 election. Putin said he was honoured to accept the proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russianpol (talk • contribs) 22:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Most Russians are deeply disillusioned?

"Most Russians are also deeply disillusioned with the West after all the hardships of 90s," is it just me or does that sentence sound rather biased? The two references provided also give me errors pages, can anyone else confirm?

--The Colonel (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Pure BS, IMO. Gritzko (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This is correct, though the given references require a privileged access to The Times. The referenced articles, however, have been used by other sites and can be easily found by title and author, here, for example. GreyHood ^Talk 18:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

To User:Greyhood

Greyhood. I saw you dismissing (and erasing citations of) The Economist, Guardian, Moscow Helsinki Group and others. Now, you dismiss Financial Times based on your beliefs. I personally consider you a somewhat insane person. A restless warrior of Mother Russia or something. I mean, I cannot otherwise explain why you are editing my comments. I think you should get a job or a girlfriend or something. Please stop proving to the world that Russia is the best place on Earth. (Do you live in Russia, btw?) Gritzko (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Gritzko, it's for the second time (at least), that your comments on my part are not addressing my arguments, but are personal attacks. For the current issue, understand please, that if something is sourced, it is not enough and only condition to include it into a Wikipedia article or into a lead section. We should make neutral additions, that follow all the relevant guidelines and practices, and we should not ot just insert into articles anything sourced we like.

Putin's ratings went up and down in the past, and the recent minor decline is not that important to place it in the lead, all should have WP:DUE weight and we should not fall into WP:RECENTISM (see also WP:NOTNEWS). Wikipedia should concentrate on enduring importance of people and events. Moreover, the source you have cited talks about an event, which has been given different explanations, and making emphasis on just one is against WP:NPOV.

Finally, understand please, that there should be no WP:PERSONAL ATTACKs in discussion. You should discuss articles, sources, arguments - not other editors. Most other editors would already report you at WP:ANI in my place. GreyHood ^Talk 11:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I repeat again. You systematically dismiss and erase high-quality citations in case they don't fit your personal worldview. Then, you normally provide a string of arbitrary WP:ABBREVS to support your opinion, sometimes quite comically (e.g. claiming BLP applies to political parties). You are far beyond than simply "playing with the rules". Gritzko (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I avoid "personal" arguments, while you make personal attacks in discussion. Seems like you are not willing to provide counter-arguments other than accusing your opponent in having "personal worldview" (do you realise that you also could be accused in pushing the material which fit your "personal worldview", and that this kind of discussion is not acceptable?). I suggest you to learn the rules by finally starting reading them, and not ignore or dismiss them as "arbitrary WP:ABBREVS". As you should remember, the other editors have supported the application of rules in the related discussion, not POV-pushing. GreyHood ^Talk 13:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the remove. Firstly, the lead should summarize the whole article, and should not mention anything not covered below (no information that his popularity decreased; the rating diagram is outdated anyway). Secondly, although I have no access to [5], I believe it is about the "booing" event, when Putin came on stage to deliver a speech (I think because he said boxing is not a majority sport, I can not remember, but when he called the Russian boxer a hero, everyone applauded him). This does not tell us that his popularity is on decline. Thirdly, it does not belong to the end of the lead anyway, as the previous sentences are about his personal life. Fourthly, as pointed out, stop making personal attacks; instead discuss in a friendly, human way. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 13:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Putin used the term "боевые искусства" instead of "смешанные единоборства", which some fans didn't like. Some people also didn't like the fact that the doors to quit the arena were closed, even though the fight just have ended, and they had to hear Putin's speech whether they liked it or not. So it is very likely that some part of the public indeed booed Putin on that event. But right when Putin started speaking, they carried out the defeated guy, Jeff Monson, and some people definitely booed Monson, not Putin, at that moment. And when Putin praised the winner, Fyodor Yemelyanenko, the public applauded Putin. So this incident is too controversial to say that it is a testimony of some declining popularity. GreyHood ^Talk 14:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That is your personal reinterpretation, I repeat again. (I may say that all things you mention here is just lame post-factum PR efforts, and googling for 10 minutes in Russian gives the full picture, but that is redundant, actually.) The source says: ratings are dropping across the board, his personal popularity is decreasing, he even got booed. That's what FT says. The rest is said by you personally, in this particular case.

TO [User:GreatOrangePumpkin]. Well, I may extend the article a bit, regarding evolution of the rating, but instead I struggle to keep a well-sourced trivial fact in the article. My previous experience of interaction with Greyhood is not positive at all. The guy simply erases everything he dislikes, just now or a week later. Arguments change, the outcome does not. He keeps changing arguments till he erases stuff. Gritzko (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not my personal interpretation, you know well enough that I could support it by sources. And FT was not present at the event, it just has reported one point of view on what has happened, not necessarily the primary point of view.

Here I give an example of a recent booing incident with Barack Obama, which is not mentioned in the Barack Obama article. Michelle Obama was also booed recently on some occasion, and it is not in the article. The reason is obvious - the incidents are of minor importance.

Your pushing of that particular minor incident of Putin's biography to the lead fails WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Please explain why should we disregard these policies and the examples of other articles, including the featured article Barack Obama. GreyHood ^Talk 15:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I added a BBC article that clearly says: Putin's popularity is declining. I added a Washington post article that explains the significance of the booing incident (although the booing is not even directly mentioned in the article - still you want to erase it, fanatically). As you might see, the fact is relevant, important and well-sourced. If you want to erase this particular fact, you should erase half the article first. Simply because those other statements are way more shaky, regarding both sources and significance. But you attack this particular fact. Why? Tell me. Gritzko (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You put to much weight to the importance of this recent events. Even the sources that you use speak of different explanations of the event, and reporting just one of them or using it as a support for "declining polpularity" fails WP:NPOV. Overall there may be some decline in Putin's popularity, few percents. At the same time the recent polls show that the size of decline is within the limits of observational error, that is insignificant. Maybe it can be added to the relevant section, but most certainly it does not belong to the lead. Also, the same polls show, that while 2% less people trust Putin and Medvedev this month, the majority still approve their actions, 67% and 62% respectively, and these figures seem to be stable. One cannot speak of any serious drops in popularity according to these numbers. GreyHood ^Talk 15:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

("You put to much weight to the importance of this recent events." - and then suddenly, just two weeks later, we have the biggest demos against Putin ever! Sounds like Gritzko can read the weather better than you, Greyhood :) That said, reliable sources have not said that the booing of the Obamas shows a sudden change in popularity, or an increase in the expression of dissent. That was the point of the BBC's and other articles that were cited regarding Putin, however. Why? Because the Obamas live in a democratic country, Putin does not - so any expression of dissent is inherently more notable in the case of the latter - which is why the sources highlighted it. And now... we have mass demos against Putin. It all just fits into place. Once again Greyhood, it seems you are picking sources that you like, and rejecting ones you don't, and showing poor judgement in all of it.)Malick78 (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Finally, you give some sources. Thanks. But wait! That is a monthly change, no wonder it is marginal! And that agrees well with my BBC article which says -16% approval in a year (not to say trust). So it declines, right?

Regarding your NPOV argument, well, articles clearly say where those "different" explanations come from. Greyhood, NPOV does not mean "only neutral facts"; it means "neutral point of view". The fact is not neutral, right, but that does not make it non-NPOV. Not to say that booing is not even mentioned in the article. Gritzko (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad that you also give sources and start to discuss specific arguments, instead of ignoring them. If you speak about overall ratings over the longer period of time, like a year, you are right that there was a drop. But if we speak about even longer periods, there was a similar drop in Putin's rating before the 2004 elections, but since then it has risen up again, and now drops down again, likely due to all that pre-election black PR. Nothing new or non-expectable, nothing interesting or very significant here. Putin still is the most popular politician in Russia, and whether this recent drop in ratings is something endurable and significant remains to be seen. And per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.

The article doesn't mention the booing event but it speeks about "some events" and references to them, without proper discussion of the relevant points of view on that events, which is required by WP:NPOV.

My suggestion is to discuss the last year's drop in ratings in the relevant section on Putin's popularity and remove WP:WEASEL from the lead. It is clear that per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER the booing stuff most certainly does not deserve to be in the lead. As for the ratings decline, this appears to be more complex question, but we may take an example from the featured Barack Obama article, which doesn't mention the booing incidents at all, and discuss Obama's popularity drop from 68% (80-83% just before inauguration) to 41% only in the relevant section. GreyHood ^Talk 17:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

So, after 10,000 symbols of discussion, you agree that the fact deserves to be mentioned in principle, right? Greyhood, I have a family and I have a job. If I want to keep them I cannot spend time here endlessly arguing about the meaning of the word "meaning".

Your example of Obama is not fully applicable. Putin is an authoritarian leader who has full control of government, TV, police and parliament. Obama is not. Things that are less important for Obama may have key importance for Putin, which is exactly the case here (not my theory, Washington Post mentions that as well).

I think, the fact should be mentioned in the lead section and also in the relevant section. That is the right way. Because Putin has lowest ratings since he got control of TV. Gritzko (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(Another option is to erase the "widespread popularity" passage from the lead as well. Say all or say nothing.) Gritzko (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact might deserve a mention, but not in the present form and not in the lead, which I argued against from the very beginning. "Putin is an authoritarian leader" is POV and discrimination. Of course he has full control of the government as Prime Minister, and of parliament as a leader of the majority party (and that's a normal situation for any democratic country). And there are opposition channels, radios and fully uncontrolled Internet in Russia. So I wait for new arguments, why these "recent events" should have so much weight as to be placed in the intro, and why this obvious WP:RECENTISM should be tolerated. GreyHood ^Talk 16:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Greyhood! Look, Western media lies again: [6] Oops, that is Eastern media! Nevermind... Gritzko (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

For an Asian observer the article even in its current state seems biased against Putin and what he has achieved for Russia. The reader who is trying to push the recent booing of Putin seems to be of a firmly western mindset, which wouldn't sit well even with an Asian audience. Whatever that is published in newspapers are opinions of analysts who are trained in the thinking of a certain culture. On this medium it is best that the culture of the subject (Russians in this case) is put forth before other cultures. I'm not an expert in this field, but the article doesn't really seem to show that Putin has renewed ties with old non-aligned nations (basically nations that were against western imperialism during the cold war), and opinion of his leadership in China and India (constituting close to half the world's population!) - Sumedha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.223.164.12 (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, seems like this entire article needs improvement. Eurocentrism and Americentrism, lots of minor criticisms with undue weight, certain major things missing, some sections looking like an ill-sorted collection of news. Some other articles on top Russian politicians have been improved this year, but not this article. We need to bring it closer to the FA standards, or at least GA. GreyHood ^Talk 22:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Greyhood! I am really tired of your Greyhood's Universal Erasure Recipe. You tend to declare any unpleasant publication in the press as "biased" and any critics coming from a politician as "biased critics by opposition". Even such a recognized and long-retired guy as Gorbachev became a (biased) "opposition politician" thanks to you, mostly because he made some critical remarks once in a decade, as far as I understand. If US articles would be edited according to your method, no article on R politician would even have quotes by D folks and vice-versa (and any non-aligneds would be labeled as generally "oppositional"). So if you'd like to continue with GUERring (you will do that for sure), I'll be undoing that without much of comment. Gritzko (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice term "Great Patriotic Purge" btw. Gorbachev attempted to create two opposition parties in the last decade, the Social Democratic Party of Russia and the Union of Social Democrats, though eventually the attempts failed. And definitely it doesn't look like Gorbachev is "long-retired". He may be recognized in the West but he has dismal ratings in Russia, probably being the most hated politician in the country.

Again your personal theories. Gritzko (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

We do not need opinions of political opponents in high profile articles, but should prefer hard facts instead. Information on court decisions, criminal investigations and major political moves are OK, but just bare opinions are of no value, since one would always expect criticism from political opponents.

Is Gorbachev running for President of Russia or what? Gritzko (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

And please, engage in discussion and disprove my arguments and application of policies. Undoing "without much of comment" is not the way how editing should be done on Wikipedia. GreyHood ^Talk 10:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a game of making more ridiculous arguments in a unit of time. Gritzko (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think political articles should include mudslinging by opposition politicians (e.g. Nemtsov, Gorbachev & Co). Look at Barack Obama for an example. The article, as it should, concentrates on Obama himself, his career and what he has done, and NOT on what opposition politicians THINK of him. It is totally dubious to include mudslinging by opposition politicians in a BLP. Nanobear (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have evidence, for example, regarding suppression of political satire as when NTV was told their Kukly Putin puppet had to go, that could go in the Obama article. Article content is a reflection of the person. Titles ("President") do not imply content pertaining to one individual serves as an example for another. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Gorbachev

Firstly, Gorbachev has been an active participant of Russian politics in the last decade (see Social Democratic Party of Russia, Union of Social Democrats, Independent Democratic Party of Russia). As such he is not an independent and neutral source when criticizing Putin, since he has an obvious conflict of interests.

Secondly, as seen from comparable articles on top politicians and political parties, such as the FA Barack Obama, the criticisms from opposition and other inherently biased sources are not to be inserted in such articles. Instead the article should focus on what the subject has really done, hard facts, not opinions. Actions by Putin, laws by Putin, non-controversial and obvious changes in the country.

Thirdly, look at the Gorbachev citations more closely: 1) he "criticized" and "called for extensive reforms" (but what was wrong? where are facts? "secured power for President Vladimir V. Putin and the Kremlin’s inner circle", how? and well, a President is expected to strengthen his power, and Kremlin is the government of Russia, isn't it?) 2) "Something wrong is going on with our elections" (concretely what?) the rest is just interpretations by the journalist, an opinion that hardly would be supported by specialists on the political structure of Russia, which is very different from the USSR. 3) This last criticism is outdated and strange to say the least: Putin and Medvedev are personal friends representing the same political power, and naturally it is up to them to decide who will run for elections.

All this looks like a pure mudslinging and pretty much expected criticism from a representative of a minor party not favored by the current electoral rules. In addition to that, Gorbachev has dismal ratings in Russia, and why this biased non-factual opinion from a marginal politician should be taken into account, is a question. Anyway, Putin is a living politician, it is too early to make any assessments of his rule, and much of the expressed concerns are just WP:SPECULATION and WP:Propaganda, which should be avoided. Only hard facts.

I'm removing this non-encyclopedic stuff and continuing to bring the article to the standards of the best articles in the area. Please do not disrupt my work. GreyHood ^Talk 22:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

@Greyhood: Praise or criticism from past presidents, for example, would be material for Obama, that is, what is the view of his predecessors? Gorbachev-Putin is no different. If you find something positive Gorbachev has stated, that's equally pertinent.

So, exactly how is criticism "smearing" while "popularity" deserves an entire section of the article? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and one of the sources used to credit Putin ("at least partially" per source used as justification for "impressive" in article) for economic growth also states: "There is no doubt that Russia's short-term economic growth is impressive and that Putin is at least partially responsible for it. But it has come simultaneously with the destruction of free media, threats to civil society and an unmitigated corruption of justice." Seems the lead picks and POV-amplifies the good parts of sources for the lead while it censors the not so pretty parts. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Past presidents and present marginal politicians are two different things.

The section on popularity could include information on both approval and disapproval ratings, and approving and not approving social groups.

The lead should focus on facts. The "destruction of free media, threats to civil society and an unmitigated corruption of justice" are not facts, but opinions. GreyHood ^Talk 16:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Your methods and objectives are quite obvious at this point. Gritzko (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Greyhood, if you are not willing to represent sources fully and accurately as to their overall viewpoint, then the only option is to jettison the source and for you to find one which does not indicate that economic progress came at the price of the "destruction of free media, threats to civil society and an unmitigated corruption of justice," i.e., economic progress partially credited to Putin, but what of the cost to society? [That is not me asking, that is me representing the source accurately.] PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to edit this article or provide specific info, but one good source for Putin's economic achievements is

• Guriev, Sergei; Tsyvinski, Aleh (2010). "Challenges Facing the Russian Economy after the Crisis". In Anders Åslund, Sergei Guriev, Andrew C. Kuchins. Russia After the Global Economic Crisis. Peterson Institute for International Economics; Centre for Strategic and International Studies; New Economic School. pp. 9-39. ISBN 9780881324976. 

Other chapters in the book also contain good info, and Peter Rutland's chapter in Developments in Russian Politics 6 is worth looking at as well. Nanobear (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Economic progress could be estimated by hard facts such as newly built plants and infrastructure, or by substantial economic statistics, while the "destruction of free media, threats to civil society and an unmitigated corruption of justice" are opinions propagating certain labels and not necessarily corresponding to reality. Russia has free and often critical to the government radio and TV stations, and totally uncontrolled Internet where all media are equal, with ever growing number of Internet-subscribers in the country (recently Russia overtook Germany as #1 in Europe by number of Internet users). The "threats to civil society" is a heavy POV since Russian government actually supports and sometimes is supported by a number of independent civil organizations. Few marginal opposition parties are not the whole of "civil society" actually, and often they are not exactly civil in fact. As for the "unmitigated corruption of justice" the corruption rapidly grew in Russia in the 1990s before Putin, but didn't significantly changed in the 2000s according to the Corruption Perception index (and the estimates improved the last year thanks to Medvedev anti-corruption program). These are facts, not highly POVish opinions as the one cited. Also, improving economy is generally considered a basis of improving the society. GreyHood ^Talk 00:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You are only showing how opinionated you are. Gritzko (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no need in again discussing users instead of their arguments. GreyHood ^Talk 16:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Greyhood, perhaps we can include scholarship along the lines of "Of particular significance is the ample evidence demonstrating the Putin administration's active involvement in efforts to control certain media entities or individual journalists" in analysis of constitutional freedoms of the press and that while there is no direct control of the press, "managed pluralism" guarantees the media (per Harley Balzer, renowned Russia studies expert) "can be brought to heel at specific times and on important issues through selective application of economic and physical pressure." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This looks more credible and neutral, and if this indeed comes from a scholarly source, please insert it to the domestic policy section if you feel appropriate. I doubt though, that the situation in many other countries is different. GreyHood ^Talk 12:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

IMO the following quoted statement by Greyhood, which is in the first entry of this (Gorbachev) part of the Talk page, makes it clear that Greyhood's views of a Presidency are at variance with a balanced understanding of how a President should operate: "...and well, a President is expected to strengthen his power, and Kremlin is the government of Russia, isn't it?" IS a President expected to strengthen his power? Surely it's the case that a President working under the traditions of a democracy is meant to *utilise* his power. For a President to strengthen his power would mean him taking it upon himself to make constitutional changes. I believe that an understanding and an underlying observation of this point is crucial for anyone who makes edits to Wiki articles on important politicians. Therefore, I would like to state that I fully support Gritzko. And this is after having read through most of the Gritzko:Greyhood arguments on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boscaswell (talk • contribs) 08:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

edit lock good

I applauding Wikipedia for edit block on Vladimir Putin article. Many people in Russia and United States and other nations in world are perhaps wishing to say bad things about party and leader, especially now during election time, when lots of people say silly things. Many thanks to Wikipedia editor for official edit block. He is helping democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.2.19 (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The page has been indefinetely protected since 20 July 2010. --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Why there is no criticism section in this article?? Putin has been highly criticized both for suppressing free speech, alleged silencing, role in KGB, dictatorship tendencies etc. There are thousands of peoples in Russia and over the world that are protesting against or have written a petition against him called "Putin must go" (not even mentioned in this article, though found in russian language version "Путин должен уйти") - it's been covered in all free media. It seems absurd that he does not have the "criticism" section like many even much, much less criticized persons in Wikipedia have, though there are many traces of such deleted sections. Almost seems like a censorship... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.198.144.122 (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Long story short, Putin's fanboys are always on guard. Gritzko (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Care to explain this comment, because your actions and comments on this article are very close to being reported to WP:AE. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 05:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, folks who post fan photos of Putin and erase any inconvenient facts are pretty much fanboys according to my definitions. Please report me now. Gritzko (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

While I can't condone Gritzko's comment (though the first one above is not directed at anyone in particular), it does seem that Greyhood, you Russavia, and others are overdetermined to delete non-flattering information about the article's subject.Malick78 (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

An online petition Putin must go was signed by 115,415 people in the course of 20 months [7], with no 100% control to exclude multiple signing by one person. 115,415 is 0.08% of Russia's population. By all means this campaign is marginal and deserves no mention in this article. As for the criticism on the whole, a separate section would be just a POVish POV-fork. Any substantial and factual criticism on Putin's policies should be added to the relevant sections, such as Domestic policy, Economic policy, Environmental policy and the like. GreyHood ^Talk 20:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:STRUCTURE says how the article should be organized to maintain neutrality. GreyHood ^Talk 22:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, put criticism within sections, not in it's own section if possible. On the other hand, a criticism section is better than this fluffing we're doing to him now :) As for neutrality, you're the last person to advocate it, surely? Malick78 (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In your simultaneous post below [8] you have declared a negative attitude to the subject and POV. Looks strange alongside the criticism of another editor for being "the last person to advocate" neutrality. In this your post, you apparently suppose a very high degree of bad faith and bias in me, even despite I quote a part of exactly WP:Neutrality policy and try to implement it. I can only repeat my advice to you to start showing more neutral stance yourself, not a negative one. And from now on let's not derail the talk into discussing editors instead of articles, facts and policies. GreyHood ^Talk 00:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

POV

A POV tag has just been put on this - so I guess I'll add that I agree with it. There's too little negative stuff about Putin: his "managed democracy", squashing of the opposition, etc.Malick78 (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There's too little negative stuff about Putin. Nice declaration. I thought that our goal should be the neutral coverage of the subject, putting more effort into facts rather than opinions, and taking into account the weight of facts. Bringing more "negative stuff" will only increase the existing problems with the article, that is: heavy euro- and americentrism in the assessment of Putin instead of more global view with the focus on the primarily important domestic Russian view, heavy burden of marginal opinions, lack of many important facts about what Putin has really done and not what others think of him (that's with the article being far above the recommended 100,000 bytes threshold).

Re: "managed democracy" is just a propaganda label, since every democracy is somehow managed system, not anarchy, and "squashing of the opposition" is highly POV, since non-parliamentary opposition has dismal popularity in Russia, while parliamentary one doesn't complain much. GreyHood ^Talk 20:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't play dumb. Positive + negative = overall neutrality. You know that.Malick78 (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Be more accurate with adjectives, please. You have declared that There's too little negative stuff about Putin, which suggests that your aim in editing this article is to add more negative stuff and keep more of the current negative stuff in the article. In my view, this is a flawed approach. We can't take, say 50% of random criticisms and 50% of random positive things and then claim the article is neutral. There are too much opinions and not enough facts in the article, not globalized enough view, and much undue weight given to certain opinions and some facts. Fixing those issues would be an improvement and a step to neutrality. Adding more "negative stuff" to this article, half of which is a great mess and which is somewhat oversized while lacking many important information, will just degrade the article even further. GreyHood ^Talk 22:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You know I didn't mean 'random' stuff. As for it being a mess - it just effectively reflects the subject's attitude to governing. Hopeless. Malick78 (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

By that you declare that you are supporting particular POV regarding the subject. And when measured against the subject's popularity in Russia (widely acknowledged both by Western and Russian media, and supported both by polls) and against the highly positive economic indicators of Russia under Putin's rule, your POV is a minority POV. When measured globally, your POV doesn't seem to be majority either. You know, with such an openly negative attitude towards the subject from you, with an opinion that adding more negative stuff would improve the article, and given your background of supporting the yellow press stories like the one with Kabaeva, I can only advice you to start showing more neutral stance if you really want to improve this article. GreyHood ^Talk 00:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You are saying nothing new or of interest, sorry. I'm against Putin just like every sensible editor editing Hitler is against Hitler (though, yes, I recognise Hitler was worse :) ). That doesn't stop those editors from editing neutrally though, or, if it ever became necessary, from adding negative info to make Hitler balanced if ever too many neo-nazis slanted it in the moustached one's favour. Here Putin is too pro-Putin. It needs balancing, and I (and many others) have noted that need. As for telling me to show a "neutral stance", I think it's time for you to buy a mirror.Malick78 (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Just as I said above you support a minority POV on the subject. You write "I'm against Putin just like every sensible editor editing Hitler is against Hitler" does this ad Hitlerum argument supposes that the people who do not share your minority POV are not sensible?

I edit this article measuring it against the other good and FA political articles standards, and I want to make it more neutral and focus on facts rather than on opinions. You, as you have openly declared yet again, want to edit this article from the position of negative attitude to the subject and with intention to bring more negative stuff (likely, opnions again). I do not think that it is a constructive position. GreyHood ^Talk 21:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent events and his slip in popularity

I'd say his fall in popularity should be reflected - both in the intro and also in the body of the text. It looks like it'll be a long-term issue, so should be dealt with. Recently, Greyhood has deleted info from the intro about the boos at the fighting match - but it seems to have been a significant event and reliable sources, such as the BBC, are calling it such, a prelude to the 2011 Russian protests. It's gotta be covered properly, me thinks. Malick78 (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

As I've already said, there was a similar drop in Putin's popularity before the 2004 elections, so that's not a new story. Reflecting in the lead every up and down in Putin's ratings is a heavy WP:RECENTISM and WP:Undue weight. Also, as was already said in the discussions above, there are different explanations to the booing story - reflecting them all means putting too much weight to this trivial event, while not reflecting them means non-neutral coverage. At the same event Putin was applauded, and it is not clear who was the person the booing was directed at. It's a sign of bias and yellow press style, and it's quite a pity that BBC and likes put so much attention to this episode. Note that Putin's popularity started decline before that event, and while I don't know the latest opinion polls, it is clear that if the popularity goes up that would be against the theory that that episode was somehow significant, while if the popularity goes down, that would be likely connected to the elections story rather than to some trivial episodes. GreyHood ^Talk 20:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's just your humble view that this is a passing phase and "undue" and "recentism". Recent things can be incredibly important. So, why don't we look at reliable sources? The BBC link above says, "Vladimir Putin is looking weaker than at any time in his political career" and then gives a list of important events in an info box ("Russia's new dissent: 24 Sept: Vladimir Putin announces he is aiming to return to the presidency for a third term, to dismay of liberal opponents; 20 Nov: Putin booed at martial arts fight; 4 Dec: Parliamentary elections: United Russia win, but suffer sharp drop in support to under 50%; 5 and 6 Dec: Mass protests in Moscow and elsewhere; protesters chant "Russia without Putin!" Hundreds are arrested; 10 Dec: Fresh protests called") - showing that it considers the booing to be a sign of real dissent.

Do you have similar sources playing down these events? Please show them. Be sure that I and others can find a dozen other RS showing similar views to the Beeb article.Malick78 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• The key word in your first BBC citation is looking. This means it is just an opinion of someone who is looking at the situation. But we need not such opinions, we need either hard facts or at least commonly accepted non-controversial opinions. We may take poll figures and say that according to the polls Putin's ratings go up or down. We may even reference it in the relevant section and leave unreferenced in the lead. All we might say using that BBC citation is exactly that "according to BBC, Vladimir Putin is looking weaker than at any time in his political career". Sorry, but I wouldn't place any opinion like this into a lead section of any top politician article. This gives undue weight to BBC. And if you are going to use a whole bunch of western media sources to back up this, that would just reflect the fact that that opinion is not global, and we should avoid giving such regional opinions WP:Undue weight.
• As for the sources that downplay booing: this early BBC report says that "Mr Putin's supporters later claimed the audience was jeering Mr Monson", and that "the director of the Olimpisky stadium which hosted the fight, Mikhail Moskalyov, told local media that the audience was reacting as the American fighter left the ring." Later the version was also confirmed by Putin's Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov [9] [10] and, according to Peskov, by Jeff Monson himself.[11] (Some fans say the boos really were for Putin, but that is based only on posts in Facebook). According to Potupchik, mentioned here [12], the booing arised because they didn't let the beer-full people out of the stadium to the toilets immediately after the fight ended ;) [13]. So you see, the incident is rather complex and controversial.

Finally, the same BBC source say about Putin: "Although his approval ratings are still high, at 61%, that figure has fallen by 16% from last year." 61% is a figure that most political leaders in Europe or United states can only dream about. Suppose that these 61%, that is the majority of Russians do not approve booing at Putin or do not agree that there was booing at him at all. Should we ignore that majority?

If BBC pushes this controversial booing incident into every article about recent protests, this doesn't mean that in reality there is some casual connection between the events. I read a lot of Russian media, including the opposition media, covering the protests, and haven't seen mention of that old incident in connection to the protests anywhere so far. And if you mean that is was just an important "sign", well, the recent protests are definitely the bigger and less controversial sign, and they certainly deserve to be in the body of the article. At the same time, their scale and weight when measured against the whole of Russia's population, where the majority supports Putin, as well as no clear outcome out of these protests so far, speaks against the inclusion of any such information to the lead. GreyHood ^Talk 23:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is another article that discusses the booing as a sort of sea-change (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/12/19/111219fa_fact_remnick?currentPage=all). The story does not seem to be a flash in the pan, as Greyhood is claiming, but seems to be persisting. Moreover, I do not think Greyhood's position is internally consistent. If it is complex and controversial whether he is booed, and this is leading to perceptions that he is losing his grip on public opinion, that is notable. For a long time, the conventional wisdom in the West has been that Putin's position is completely solid--to have that overturned is notable.

Furthermore, I do not think that it makes sense to cite recentism in tihs article. Since Putin has now announced that he is running for President, it is necessary to not only cover the broad sweep of his political career, but also to include as assessment of his current position. JustinBlank (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You just have given another journalist's opinion. Note that Putin was applauded during the same speech and managed to grip the same public at least for a time. My position is consistent: since it is complex and controversial whether he was booed at and for what the reason, this means that in one variant of the situation he might have been not booed at at all or booed only by a small part of the crowd (while the larger part booed at Monson). This in turn means that all those speculations on Putin loosing the grip based on that incident might be very well based on nothing (we are not 100% sure that he was booed at). And the lead and the article on Putin or any other person should provide some key facts on him, not discuss some minor and controversial episodes or speculations based on those episodes. GreyHood ^Talk 12:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

For some reason Putin didn't go to St Petersburg for a consert just after this incident, but sent his deputy Kozak instead, where Kozak was booed instead. Närking (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

So, in what way does it affect Putin's popularity? As far as I understand, people were expecting to see Putin but got Kozak. Perhaps some didn't like that. GreyHood ^Talk 23:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Niiiiice. May I cite you as a reliable source? Gritzko (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Greyhood, you seem to be swimming against the tide here - consensus is moving against you. As to 61% approval, I read something yesterday saying he was down to 35% or so. I'll try to find it - but really, I you going to keep saying his popularity hasn't dwindled? You're gonna look rather silly if you carry on (and not a little POV). The fact is, the majority of publications seem to think he was the target of the booing - so, let's go with that. Especially if consensus here is that that is what the booing was. Malick78 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Malick, be careful with adjectives again. There are various studies and various rating indicators: "trust" by http://fom.ru/ and "approval" by http://levada.ru and http://wciom.ru, the three main sociological services in Russia. They differ in methodology.

• According to the most recent data from Levada in October, Putin's approval stands at 35%, and either decreased 3% since summer or even didn't change a single percent since August according to this source with some particular poll results from that month.
• According to the most recent data from FOM on 11 December, trust stands at 52.8%, and the figure dropped 1.6% since 27 November following the elections, while didn't changed at all from 20th November to 27th November following the "booing event".
• According to VCIOM, trust, calculated as positive trust minus distrust, stands at 34% on November 26 and decreased 1% from November 19, because positive trust decreased 2% and distrust decreased 1% in that period [14]. previously in November tis indicator briefly increase from 36% to 38% and than dropped to the current 34%.

All this hardly tells about any significant influence of current events, both "booing" or even the elections on Putin's ratings. With elections, this may change when more data is published, but so far we don't know that. GreyHood ^Talk 23:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

As for "the majority of publications seem to think he was the target of the booing", well the majority of Russian media either ignored the booing at all or were not as intent to see some "signs" in it. And following the elections, the event is all but forgotten with few to none sources seeking any connections. GreyHood ^Talk 23:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If the man is booed and that is reliably reported and reputably interpreted as a slip in popularity (i.e., therefore notable), it's perhaps unfortunate, but that is what it is. If Obama slips in the polls and there is reputable interpretation published thereof, that is also notable for that biographical article. Considering I had to remove mention of erotic calendars published in Putin's honor, the standard for inclusion in this article is certainly not "noteworthy." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is a great mess and many minor things need to be removed. And no need to infest this article with even more such minor things. The recent polls do not support any significant fall in popularity right after the "booing event", the popularity started to fall long before, all that alredy happened in 2004, and this all is plain WP:SPECULATION. GreyHood ^Talk 23:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I can hardly believe that we all have to spend time to discuss such minor incidents which are more of interest to yellow press rather than to a scholarly study or an encyclopedia. If someone wants to reflect the drop of Putin's ratings this year in the article, we have neutral and non-controversial data from sociological services to back up that. But first explain me why should we do include the recentist information on the popularity to the lead, given the fact that the story is not new (there was a similar drop in 2004) and given the fact that other articles, such as FA Barack Obama, don't do that (Obama was noticeably more popular when he became a President, and I can't see any mention of that in the lead). GreyHood ^Talk 23:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting things: do you think the BBC is "yellow press"? It most certainly is not. As for the similar drop in 2004 - well, it's worse now, not 'similar'. And multiple sources have identified this as a sea-change. As far as I can see, the consensus is against you. Perhaps you should admit that?Malick78 (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The Obama article does mention a substantial drop in his approval ratings. One need only search for "approval" in that page to find it. So either you're wrong about that page, or you're being unclear about what is different in the Obama article.

Also, please stop waving the recentist tag around like some of trump card. As I explained, since he is currently up for election, information that bears on his popularity is especially relevant. Moreover, note that the very WP:Recentism page that you link to is quite reserved about declaring recentism a bad thing. Unlike (for instance) NPOV violations, material covering recent events is not automatically suspect. JustinBlank (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I was speaking about the lead section of Obama article, not about the whole article, so my question remains unanswered. Surely the information on ratings belongs to the body of the article, but it is a question whether it belongs to WP:LEAD. And given the lead context WP:Recentism becomes more relevant than ever. As for the minor incidents, they surely don't belong to the lead, since The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. There were tons of more important events in Putin's biography than that controversial "booing incident" (not sure to have happened at all), and pulling such stuff to the lead is too obviously inappropriate from the point of view of WP:LEAD, Wp:RECENTISM and WP:WEIGHT. I don't believe it belongs to the body of the article either. GreyHood ^Talk 13:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't said BBC is yellow press. But focusing on non-significant controversial things instead of major non-controversial events and non controversial reliable data is indeed characteristic of yellow press.

Sea-change is WP:Speculation. If this "sea change" results in Putin not elected President in March, that would be indeed a sea change, but so far this is just a speculation. On the size of the drop: who knows, whether there would be again an upsurge of the popularity as in the past, and then even worse drop than now? And why the lead of this article never mentioned a similarly impressive rise of the ratings in 2005-2008? Anyway, all this is recentism and something not found in the featured articles. And you haven't answered my question on Obama.

I do not discard the opinions of several people in the recent discussions above, who supported the old consensus. Bring more arguments in support of your point and answer some of my key questions please. GreyHood ^Talk 00:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that I did not say the article should say that this is a sea change. At best, you're seizing on word choice to avoid the main thrust of what I was saying. I noted the article as evidence that the events are being perceived as a sea-change (my characterization). To adopt that as the main line of the article would be excessive. But that a wide variety of observers are seeing this as significant gives us reason to include it in the article. JustinBlank (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If you agree that To adopt that as the main line of the article would be excessive, than probably you agree that to add it to the lead is wrong, since the lead should include exactly the mainline things. As for the inclusion of the information to the body, let's make it clear what we want to be included: I agree that the last year's drop of ratings should be included there and the best sources we have for that are the results of polls. Do you agree with that? GreyHood ^Talk 13:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I second that. Honestly, I do not remember similar events in 2004. Greyhood, you indeed look like a silly fan of Putin. Gritzko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC).

There were widespread major rallies in 2004 against ru:Монетизация льгот.[15]

Unlike you and Malick I never declared my attitude to Putin or the Russian government. If the personal attitude is an argument for you against editing this article or making particular changes, you should be the first person to avoid editing here.

This last personal attack against me noted. GreyHood ^Talk 00:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It was not any close in 2004. The problem is your personal beliefs, which are quite obvious. Another problem is that you make up rediculous arguments on the go. You cannot be persuaded cause you know the truth. Media lies, politicians lie, but they can never deceive you. That is the problem. Gritzko (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

In 2004 there were protests all around the country, with thousands participating (read the source) in many dozens of cities and regions, and that continued for a long time and sometimes involved such things as blocking the roads etc. Quite comparable with or even surpassing the recent protests on some parameters.

The problem is that you seem unable to make a single comment without discussing other users. GreyHood ^Talk 13:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

ru:Монетизация льгот is in Russian, Greyhood. If you think it has valid info, please summarise in English for non-Russian speakers. That said, it mentions protests but gives no figures for size so your point has not been proven. If and when we see figures, we can decide whether you have a point. However, the fact that no articles in the media (and I've read about 50 in the last week) seem to mention these 2004 protests in length suggests they should not have much weight in our considerations. As for you not stating your beliefs, Gritzko is bang on with the point that your beliefs are evident in your edits. All editors have POVs of some sort, but the rest of us try harder, it seems, to ignore ours.Malick78 (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I have provided this link with numbers above. Don't see as large a number as the 10th December meeting in Moscow, but otherwise the numbers, the spread, and the intense of those protests are quite comparable with modern ones. Why they never achieved a proper attention by the western media and are mostly forgotten? Well, seems like the fortunes and well-being of Russian pensioners are of less interest to western media than the fortunes of democracy in the country. GreyHood ^Talk 22:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A socialist website isn't perhaps very objective, but to tackle your last point - democracy will lead to the improved well-being of Russian pensioners, the improved well-being of Russian pensioners will not lead to more democracy. Democracy is therefore of more interest. As simple as that.Malick78 (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus formed

Greyhood, there are 5 different editors in this section against you. In your corner - you. Time to step aside and have some humility. You can't win them all. If you're right - time will tell and we can come back to this. For now though, the consensus is that the article needs to mention his slip in popularity, and a short line in the intro would be appropriate. Please don't obstruct this.Malick78 (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Such recentist info definitely does not belong in the lead, and probably not in the article at all. Nanobear (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Please reread WP:RECENTISM. It's about a whole article or section being slanted to recent events. It doesn't mean no recent events should be included. It certainly doesn't mean something that is notable (with multiple-sources, as we have here, underlining its notability) should be excluded. Notability (with RS) trumps everything - and it seems other editors here consider it notable. As for the lead - a single sentence is hardly the kind of "bloating" WP:RECENTISM opposes.Malick78 (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As I've already explained, there is WP:LEAD. The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. So first we need to insert the information to the relevant section in the article and than consider its weight for adding to the lead. Recentist information, not necessarily, but very likely will have a lower weight than well established information with obvious enduring notability. More to say, recentist opinions are sure to have a very low weight. GreyHood ^Talk 22:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The biggest protests of his leadership deserve mentioning, as does a sea-change in his popularity.Malick78 (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Not formed

Firstly, I'm not against adding the relevant information on popularity slip with good and neutral sources to the body of the article.

Secondly, I'm not sure that all people in the recent posts advocate adding of that information specifically to the lead rather than to the article on the whole.

Thirdly, I haven't received a proper answer why should we ignore an example of featured article Barack Obama which focuses on what Obama has done in the lead rather than on what others think of him.

Fourthly, there were opinions of editors in quite recent discussions against adding any such information to the lead, and I do not see why this opinions have to be discarded or why those editors should necessarily reinstate them again while they posted here not so long ago.

Fifthly, remember WP:NOTAVOTE. We should be concerned with strength of arguments rather than with numbers of people who support this or that position. GreyHood ^Talk 16:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's not a vote, I just thought I'd make the obviousness of the consensus clear to you. If I've summed up the views of the other 4 wrongly, I'm sure they'll step in and correct me. As for previous people's posts - the sections that you've previously referred to are so long it's hard to get a sense of what the consensus there was, in my view. As for Obama - he is constantly criticised by a free media. Putin has received a twelve-year blowjob from the Russian media. Hence, any sudden upsurge in criticism is inherently notable. Thirdly, and linked to this, one of Putin's main "acheivements" has been the disassembling of the freeish media that once existed in Russia. His control of the media is a valid topic in its own right (he got rid of Kukly, took over NTV via Gazprom, allowed/encouraged journalists to be murdered) - hence, his loss of control of it is also noteworthy (as is the sudden reappearance of opposition, something he spent so long cleansing Russian politics of). Obama and Putin are very different, and so these topics should be treated differently in regard to each of them.Malick78 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The old posts still stand, and as you see, some people have reinstated their position. If there is a new consensus, which I don't think is obvious so far, I would prefer to make it clear what this consensus is about, so wait for more input from everyone involved.

Obama - he is constantly criticised by a free media. Putin was criticized by free media as well. There are opposition TV channels and radios in Russia as well as Internet with a free access and ever growing number of subscribers. The fact that Putin is not criticized by state-owned media - well, you wouldn't expect much criticizm of Republicans from media like Fox News.

Hence, any sudden upsurge in criticism is inherently notable. There is no sudden upsurge of criticism in the Russian media. The media which criticized Putin before simply continue to do this. Some state media recently covered the protests against violations on the elections, and most Internet media reported the news connected to violations, that's all. Larger actions of the opposition were sometimes reported before as well. Note that both in the media and in the protests a significant share of people condemn violations or even criticize United Russia, but doing that they not focus on criticizing Putin or not criticize him at all (Putin's rating is higher than that of United Russia).

allowed/encouraged journalists to be murdered - any proof, other than speculations?

his loss of control of it is also noteworthy - what loss? All the controlled media are still controlled, all "free media" are still free.

as is the sudden reappearance of opposition, something he spent so long cleansing Russian politics of - opposition never disappeared, it was there all the time. Just on the last meeting the old guys from opposition mingled into the larger crowd of people who protested the violations on elections.

Obama and Putin are very different, and so these topics should be treated differently - discrimination on its way. GreyHood ^Talk 21:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"We should be concerned with strength of arguments" reads an awful lot like "My argument is the best because it's mine, duh!" This is not a good way to go about defending your case. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why you should write such things here instead of simply discussing facts and addressing arguments. GreyHood ^Talk 21:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It is very difficult to discuss facts with somebody who is living in his own world. "what loss? All the controlled media are still controlled"???? Have you noticed anything over the last week? The state channels ignoring the protests till their own presenters threatened them? The staff at Kommersant Vlast who were just sacked for daring to criticise Putin? "opposition never disappeared"...? It was squashed till it almost couldn't breathe. You are either wilfully ignoring facts, making discussion with you impossible, or you are just plain being disruptive.Malick78 (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Malick78, you're obviously heated. You really need to calm down, because you're not being very civil. You should take a break and do something else for a while. Thanks. Nanobear (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Malick, if you mean the history with NTV, the channel has refuted existence of any threats [16], the threats were never confirmed by the person who allegedly made them, and those refuted reports by the way originally were made by Kommersant. And Kommersant is a private media, not controlled by the government, so how it is related to Putin loosing control? And even if it was, wouldn't the fact that journalists were sacked mean that the control was exercised? But seems just that some journalists crossed the line with false reports and non-neutral attitude, and the private owner preferred to sack them. GreyHood ^Talk 22:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda article

Since when Wikipedia started to host propaganda? All the article is extremely pro-Putin, not reflecting the reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.135.63 (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of us are working on it. Unfortunately, it's tough trying to fight his minions.Malick78 (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

More personal attacks are not the best way to conduct discussion. This article is a mess, and should be more slanted towards facts. Any opinion-based propaganda, both positive and negative should be removed. GreyHood ^Talk 13:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems like some people in the West just can't stand the fact he's not a devil they want him to be. Just a power figure like Hu Jintao. Success in economy and wellfare, regress in human rights and democracy, military victories, fradulent elections, memorable quotes, official facade - they all are just parts of the same ongoing biography of a historical figure.Garret Beaumain (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"Hu Jintao" seems to be a flawed analogy. China has industrial growth, so Russia imports trucks from China these days. For me, Putin looks more like a LatinAmerican/African petrodictator. Gritzko (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I just read the article and thought exactly the same. Despite all the current protests. There isn't even a section "Criticism of Putin" in the article. really bad. --helohe (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of criticism in the article itself. Don't take your political bias to Wikipedia, please. It is not a place to fight for your ideals.Garret Beaumain (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Gazprom

Gazprom is very important to Russia, i think there should be more on how Putin transformed it(establishment of government control,Gazprom having exclusive right to export natural gas,about the law that the goverment must controll at least 50,01%) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.223.214.197 (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 December 2011

There is no proof of voter fraud except statements without proof being made wildly. This should be reflected in the article. The courts have not found the election to be fraudulent; any hearsay statements about "disputed elections" are either lies or parroting.

50.89.57.86 (talk) 09:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the wording to more neutral for now. GreyHood ^Talk 15:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the current wording is now good -- the article doesn't say that the results were good or bad, it says that "many Russians protested against" which is true, and sourced. 50k people protesting? That's notable in an of itself, whether or not it's true. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

minor bibliographical problem

Something is wrong with that title. I don't want to play with it because I don't know if it needs a 1-em dash or a colon or what. Perhaps the editor who added the reference to the page still watches it and can provide the needed fix? Elinruby (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

what tag in second term section

That sentence is essentially meaningless. How do you merge a subject? Are we talking about government departments, local administrative units? What? Also, since a somewhat dubious statement later in the paragraph -- "did not affect his popularity" -- has had a "needs citation" tag for three years apparently, I am removing it. Fails to pass the giggle test, and three years is enough opportunity to cite it. Elinruby (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the paragraph originally said that after Belsan "Putin suggested the creation of the Public Chamber of Russia and launched an initiative to replace the direct election of the Governors and Presidents of the Federal subjects of Russia with a system whereby they would be nominated by the President and approved or disapproved by regional legislatures." -- the logic here is not clear, if I may speak for non-Russians. Would this make sense if I knew what the Public Chamber of Russia was? If so perhaps a short description is in order. Or was Belsan just a chronological milestone? If there's a logical connection, it may have been lost when I reworked the paragraph; perhaps someone should check. I put Belsan with Belsan and left the above as its own sentence, though I am not sure why it is in this paragraph at all, actually. Elinruby (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

another "what does this even mean" question

In 2005, National Priority Projects were launched in the fields of health care, education, housing and agriculture.

So? What did they do? Elinruby (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I found *some* details further down the section, but the significance of these initiatives is still pretty hazy.

intended meaning probably not what this says

"wherein many of the judges hand down the same verdicts as they would under the old Soviet judiciary structure, and preferring instead a judiciary that interpreted and implemented the code to the current situation."

First of all, I sure hope the verdicts are not the same. Gulags anyone? Second, the last part of the sentence sets off my weasel detector - interpret the code to the current situation? Brr. Sounds like a lot of discretion, or...something...for judges who can hand down "Sovietesque" verdicts??? I strongly suspect that this needs rewording to be accurate. No matter what anyone thinks of Russian politics. Elinruby (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Foreign policy section - two years a long time for unsourced statements in a BLP

Some of it seems controversial, but it's plausible (maybe?) so I am not flat-out deleting. But the following text requires attribution:

During the Iraq crisis of 2003, Putin opposed Washington's move to invade Iraq without the benefit of a United Nations Security Council resolution explicitly authorizing the use of military force. After the official end of the war was announced, American President George W. Bush asked the United Nations to lift sanctions on Iraq. Putin supported lifting of the sanctions in due course, arguing that the UN commission first be given a chance to complete its work on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.^{[citation needed]}

In 2005, Putin and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder negotiated the construction of a major gas pipeline over the Baltic exclusively between Russia and Germany. Schröder also attended Putin's 53rd birthday in Saint Petersburg the same year.^{[citation needed]}

The CIS, seen in Moscow as its traditional sphere of influence, became one of the foreign policy priorities under Putin, as the EU and NATO have grown to encompass much of Central Europe and, more recently, the Baltic states.^{[citation needed]}

Elinruby (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

no attribution at all in this paragraph

During the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election, Putin twice visited Ukraine before the election to show his support for Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, who was widely seen as a pro-Kremlin candidate, and he congratulated him on his anticipated victory before the official election returns had been announced. Putin's personal support for Yanukovych was criticised as unwarranted interference in the affairs of a sovereign state. Crises also developed in Russia's relations with Georgia and Moldova, both former Soviet republics who accused Moscow of supporting separatist entities in their territories.

May well be true. But it needs a source! Elinruby (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Too much of stuff. Here is a Yanukovich congratulation link

Recognition of Abkhazia/South Osetia, more, 2004 stuff

NYT on Kremlin-separatist relations Gritzko (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

source this

A number of large-scale reforms in retirement (2002), banking (2001–2004), tax (2000–2003), the monetization of benefits (2005), and others have taken place.^{[citation needed]}

Details of these unspecified initiatives would also be nice, if we are going to mention them here. Elinruby (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The pension reform was mostly abandoned after Kasyanov left. At least, I heard that from people involved. The 13% tax etc was indeed a significant change for some. Monetization was half-done (got some protests in the process). Not sure about banking. Regarding most of those reforms, German Gref was one of central figures AFAIK. Hope this helps Gritzko (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

review for possible deletion

This paragraph:

During his service as President and Premier, Putin put much effort into development of sport in Russia, being a keen sportsman himself. The financing of sport in the country has greatly increased, many sporting schools and centers has been opened in the recent years. A large number of major sporting venues have been built or currently under construction in Russia, often as a part of preparations to the international events, many of which Russia is going to host for the first time in her history.

Seems to add little but peacock terms to the sports section, unless I am mistaken. I am trying to trim down this very long article -- if any of the above is not covered in the rest of the section, then it needs to be sourced and more specific. Elinruby (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

what tag on guarantee for president

I can't tell what is unclear -- whether the guarantee would do what it says? or what? Elinruby (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Forbes Magazine: Putin has been placed 2nd after Barack Obama on "The Most Powerful People In The World"

Yeah, someone should add this and make a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.231.145 (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Synth

In the third paragraph of the Lead, there are a couple sentences that really stick out.

During Putin's presidency, the Russian economy grew for nine straight years, seeing GDP increase by 72% in PPP (sixfold in nominal), poverty decrease by more than 50%, and average monthly salaries increase from $80 to $640. These achievements were ascribed[who?] to strong macroeconomic management, important fiscal policy reforms and a confluence of high oil prices, surging capital inflows and access to low-cost external financing, Some authors described them as impressive.

These sentences sound like WP:SYNTH and should probably be removed, or at least moved further down in the article where an adequate explanation can be given. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)